Talk:Occupation of Ma'an

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Scholarly quotes by relevant time period

Ottoman period

In the southeast, the Negev Desert wedge of the Wadi Araba was incorporated within the Sanjaq of Ma’an,even though most of the sanjaq lay east of the Wadi within the Vilayet of Damascus. What was to become Transjordan was divided more or less equally between the Sanjaqs of Hauran in the north and Ma’an in the south, both of which were part of the Vilayet of Damascus. These administrative divisions remained unchanged until a further Ottoman reform in 1906 transferred responsibility for the Sanjaq of Ma’an(including the Negev wedge)to the Vilayet of Hijaz.(Suzanne Lalond, included into article body).

1906

Some hard evidence here from the 1906 Anglo-Ottoman border agreement: "a separating administrative line between the vilayet of Hejaz and Gouvernorate of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula", Report on the Delimitation of the Turco-Egyptian Boundary Between the Vilayet of the Hejaz and the Peninsula of Sinai, (June-September, 1906)

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)~[reply]

I think we do have enough sources now to say that it was in the VoH from 1906 (that does not mean that the Ottomans didn't subsequently alter it again though). Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1918

  • Tariq Tell (December 2000). "Guns, Gold, and Grain: War and Food Supply in the Making of Transjordan". War, Institutions, and Social Change in the Middle East. University of California Press. p. 48.
    ISBN 978-0-520-22422-3
    . Faisal's reign in Damascus lasted twenty-two months (October 1918–July 1920) and was initiated by his father annexing Ma'an and Aqaba to the Hijaz

footnoted to https://books.google.es/books?redir_esc=y&id=r5ENAAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Aqaba+ma%27an (The Social History of the Southern Syria (Trans-Jordan) in the 19th and Early 20th Century. Walid Kazziha.1972.(I cannot find this book). Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://humanities.tau.ac.il/sites/humanities.tau.ac.il/files/media_server/humanities/zionism/%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%92/10.pdf This link is from the OETA article, I had thought it was the same as http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13531048108575800 (the author and title are the same but the content is somewhat different, the latter includes a map for instance). It would be nice to get hold of Public Record Office. W.O. 106. File 718; Secret (Telegram E.A. 1808 of 23.10.18 to see how the author justifies the statement: 

"When Allenby established the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration,the Ma'an sanjak was not included in O.E.T.A. "East,"

There is sourcing to the FO that the boundary with Hedjaz had not yet been defined (note that this formulation is not the same as "...always considered....")Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/determiningbound0000lalo/page/91 Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis By Suzanne Lalonde 2002 Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Above also says on p 94 that no official map was made to go along with Allenby release of OETA. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important point - i think the statements that Ma'an was not in OETA East are based on the original declaration definiting OETA East as "Comprises all districts East of (a) and (b) above", where the southernmost reference point was the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about that myself. In the SP map, the South boundary sort of goes across from Gaza to near the middle of the Dead Sea. This SP map is also 1918 (Lalonde says that she thinks the OETA South is based on the Egypt survey map of 1918 which is the one with it going down to Egypt. Then again, what is mean by "East of"? The mathematician would take that literally whereas a politician might take it more broadly.A legal issue is whether or not you consider Ottoman boundaries to be "legal boundaries"? (for the purposes of Uti Posesidetis) (the British did not always follow that principle).Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know it sounds very strange and I have seen no source saying it but it seems to me that if the Arabs had been granted belligerent (occupier) status then that would have given them a very good claim (as good a claim as the French or Brits had) over the territory considered as occupied by them. Maybe they should have been at San Remo. The Mandate of Ma'an?? (sorry, drifting into idle speculation here).Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism. Institute for Zionist Research Founded in Memory of Chaim Weizmann. 1980. p. 95. The still unresolved problem of the dividing line at the Gulf of Aqaba was again raised at this meeting. At the end of the Ottoman period, the southern area of Palestine had formed part of the sanjak of Ma'an. This sanjak, belonging as it did to the vilayet of Syria, did not on the face of it differ in theory from other parts of Transjordan. But as the area had for several years, after 1906, formed part of the Hedjaz vilayet, King Hussein maintained that it constituted part of his kingdom. In the absence of previous border markings, he claimed ownership of the area which had been held by Feisal's Arab army after the expulsion of the Turks in 1917. When Allenby established the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, the Ma' an sanjak was not included in O.E.T.A. "East," an omission which may perhaps be seen as a sort of de facto recognition of Hussein's claim.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see into that one. That bit at the end is the exact wording used by Alsberg.Probably where he got it from? Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South of Ma’an

Post Aqaba, "It was decided that Emir Faisal should become in effect an army commander under Sir Edmund Allenby's orders. All Arab operations North of Ma'an were to be carried out by him under the direction of the British Commander-in-Chief. South of Ma'an the High Commissioner Sir Reginald Wingate was still to act as adviser to the Emirs Ali and Abdullah and to be responsible for their supply." Macmunn, G. F.; Falls, C. (1930). Military Operations: Egypt and Palestine, From June 1917 to the End of the War Part II. History of the Great War based on Official Documents by Direction of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Vol. II. accompanying Map Case (1st ed.). London: HMSO.

OCLC 656066774
.  included

The distinction here between North of and South of Ma'an is interesting.

On October 3, Allenby met Faisal and informed him that he was prepared to recognize and Arab administration of enemy territory East of the Jordan from Ma'an to Damascus inclusive.

Cyril Falls (25 August 2003). Armageddon, 1918: The Final Palestinian Campaign of World War I. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 1–.

ISBN 0-8122-1861-2
.

Again the cutoff at Ma'an.

So the question here is the treatment of Aqaba here. If you look at the Sykes Picot map excerpt currently in the article, you’ll see an arc down from Ma’an to Aqaba, where most of the (unpopulated) area south of Ma’an is excluded, consistent with the above, but Aqaba is included. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this thesis, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32729/3/Hamm_Geoffrey_201206_PhD_Thesis.pdf (British Intelligence and Turkish Arabia: Strategy, Diplomacy,and Empire, 1898-1918), on page 355 there is a nice map claiming to show boundaries of Syrian provinces in 1914 where the border of Hijaz includes Aqaba and goes up to just South of Ma'an.Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also shows the 1906 border agreement line (the one to which Vilayet of Hijaz was a party)Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote says it comes from “H.V.F. Winstone, The Illicit Adventure: The Story of Political and Military Intelligence in the Middle East from 1898 to 1926 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982);”. I think it’s likely a copy of the Peel commission map. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page:Statesman's Year-Book 1921.djvu/1400  – via Wikisource. Not sure if it really adds anything to what we know already.Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Syria and Palestine handbook (the one used at Versailles https://dl.wdl.org/11774/service/11774.pdf), the desription for Syria has: 

"In the South, the boundary between Egypt and Syria, settled in 1906, follows an arbitrary line drawn from slightly west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to slightly east of Taba, south of Akaba, on the Red Sea. The boundary is completed by a line starting south of Akaba and running north eastwards towards Ma'an and the depression of El-Jafar, separating the vilayet of Damascus from the vilayet of Hejaz."

Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1920

"‘Abdullah had moved to the town of Ma’an, which lay inside of the Hijaz but on the boundaries with southern Syria." I, Faisal p318.Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1924

"Another problem was the visit of the Sharif Husayn to Amman in January 1924, which was designed to demonstrate that Transjordan belonged to his kingdom of the Hijaz. He went so far as to declare that the Maan region, with its sea outlet at Aqaba, was a vilayet of his kingdom." D.K.Fieldhouse Western Imperialism in the Middle East p 226. Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources discussion

Troeller,Gary

I had not seen this source before, however the conclusions being drawn by him are very similar to the conclusions that I was reaching myself on the basis of all the other sources I had been reviewing. His arguments seem persuasive (to me at least). I think that his position should be taken as the main position and then sort out which of all the other source material tends to support/contradict his positions. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Your sources above will be very good additions as well. There’s also some excellent addition detail in Shwadran. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guckian

Pages 179 to 198 of Noel Guckian's thesis are excellent - replete with quotations from original documents. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PMC / British Report

From the 1935 PMC[1]:

"M. ORTS, referring to the former frontier between the Vilayet of the Hejaz and Syria (pages 241 and 242), was surprised that extensive researches should be necessary in order to meet the wish expressed at the twenty-fifth session of the Commission.11/ Were not these boundaries known to all those who had lived under the Turkish regime? Mr. MOODY said that he had nothing to add to paragraph 10 on page 242 of the report."

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, the matter of bin Saud claim to Aqaba/Ma'an (as successor state to Hejaz) was still not resolved, just in abeyance. The British reply is also contradicted by the sources.Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1935 PMC refers in footnote 11 to the 1934 PMC,[2] which is here and quoted below:

Page 34-35: "FRONTIER BETWEEN TRANS-JORDAN AND SA'UDI ARABIA. M. ORTS put a question with regard to the frontier between Trans-Jordan and Sa'udi Arabia. Proposals had been-made in a letter, dated May 19th, 1927, from Sir Gilbert Clayton to the Emir Feisal (son of Ibn Saoud), Viceroy of the Hejaz, for a settlement as follows: A straight line from the southern extremity of the frontier between Nedj and Trans-Jordan at the point where the meridian 38° East and the parallel 29o 35" North intersected to a point on the Hejaz railway-line two miles south of Mudawwara, and from the latter in a straight line to a point on the Gulf of Akaba two miles south of the city of Akaba. The Viceroy of the Hejaz replied, on May 21st, 1927, that he did not see his way at the time to make a definitive settlement of the question of the frontier with Trans-Jordan. Being. however, desirous of maintaining cordial relations based on stable bonds of friendship, he was disposed to agree to the status quo in the Ma'an-Akaba district, and agreed not to interfere 10 the administration of the district until circumstances rendered possible a final settlement.of the question (document Cmd.2951, pages 4 and 5; see also Minutes of the Eleventh Session of the Mandates Commission, page 114, and Twentieth Session, page III). The accredited representative for Palestine, in reply to a question at the twenty-third session in June 1933 (page 117), said that the question of the frontier had not been discussed m connection with the negotiations which had recently led to the conclusion of a Treaty of Friendship between King Ibn Saoud and the Emir Abdullah. The Cairo correspondent of the Temps reported in the issue of August 17th, 1933, that the final position of Akaba and Ma'an had been settled on this occasion. During recent hostilities between Sa'udi Arabia and the Yemen, the controversy wh1ch had arisen some years previously with regard to this district had been resumed in the Press of various countries. M. Orts asked what had been the position of the boundary between the Hejaz vilayet and the vilayet of Syria under the Ottoman administration, and, in particular, which of the two vilayets contained the Akaba-Ma'an districts in dispute at the present time between Trans-Jordan and Sa'udi Arabia. The position of Akaba would appear to have special interest in connection with the access to Trans-Jordan from the sea. Mr. HALL replied that the position had not changed since the exchange of letters with Sir Gilbert Clayton. The frontier had never been delimited ; it had never been formally accepted by King Ibn Saoud, who had, however, accepted the de facto position. M. ORTS asked whether, in the accredited representative's view, Akaba formed part of Trans-Jordan. Mr. HALL replied that Akaba was administered by the Trans-Jordan Government, who maintained there a staff of police and revenue officials. It was at present only a small fishing village."
Page 149: "II. SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS. 2 . Frontiers. The Commission would welcome in the next report a statement concerning the frontier between Trans-Jordan and Sa'udi Arabia and also information as to the line of demarcation between the vilayet of the Hejaz and that of Syria in the time of the Ottoman Administration."

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frustratingly I have been unable to locate the 1934 British mandatory annual report which describes this issue in detail, so I have included Shwadran's summary in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1940 FO Memorandum from Qatar Library

This seems to be about as close to the truth of the matter as we are ever likely to get unless there are yet more unpublished materials still in the official archives. Note the contradiction between what it says and what was conveyed to the Permanent mandates Commission.Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Maps which include Ma'an and Aqaba in Syria

  • 1896
    1896
  • 1909
    1909
  • 1909
    1909
  • 1913
    1913
  • 1914 (1937)
    1914 (1937)
  • 1918 (1930)
    1918 (1930)
  • 1920
    1920
  • 1920
    1920

Maps which possibly include Ma'an and Aqaba in Hejaz

  • c.1900
    c.1900
  • 1922
    1922

Wonder where this one came from to begin with...1900

The Sharifian Solution section

@Selfstudier: I have moved this section here for discussion. I am not convinced that it fits well here, but I think it would make an excellent topic for a new Sharifian Solution article. It would allow us to bring together the Cairo Conference (1921) article with the topics of Mandatory Iraq, Emirate of Transjordan, Kingdom of Hejaz, as well as Hashemites#During_and_after_World_War_I. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I only put it there because it was interesting (to me) to track the money/relationship side of things and see how it fits together with the political dvelopments. I got the answer I wanted already so you can put the material wherever you think it will fit.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

So what exactly do we mean with the term occupation? The title is implying a military occupation while the article discusses how it was a contested claim that ended with neither the people of Ma'an and Aqaba revolting against Transjordanian authority nor with having Ibn Saud launch military campaigns to restore the territory? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing is to read the article and then the 1940 memorandum and draw your own conclusions. I will say that if Hussein had a claim (and I think he did) then I also think that bin Saud had a successor claim (that he chose for whatever reason not to actively pursue and eventually, traded in for some territorial gain). The British, via their control of Transjordan, got what they wanted too. But these are only my opinions, they don't count:) Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Massad (page 11) describes it as "annexation" rather than "occupation", which is a more accurate description in my opinion considering that the latter terms implies conflict (Sanjak Ma'an was ceded willingly by the Kingdom of Hejaz, and the territory was not treated differently from the rest of Transjordan). Makeandtoss (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time building the Annexation article a couple of years ago, helping to bring sources which precisely define the term. The term is used to describe an administrative action taken after an occupation. You can't have an annexation without an occupation, by definition (unless you don't control the territory you are claiming to annex). Either way, annexation requires a clear statement of claimed ownership/sovereignty. If we can find such a statement then we could justify the term "annexation". Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS - all these territories were technically occupied after WWI until sovereignty was formally recognized by other states, unless you argue that terra nullius was applicable, which Britain would not have accepted vis a vis Ma'an. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both this source and Britannica [3] consider it a de facto annexation. Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was also a de facto annexation. Both cases are almost identical: an occupation followed by the naturalization of the populations in the territory followed by a constitutional recognition (1928 organic law and 1952 constitution)—last two parts, effectively, annexation. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just read p11 of Massad and your quote above and now I understand what you mean. You are taking about the 1925 Occupation_of_Ma'an#Transjordan_announcement. I had thought you meant Hussein’s period of administration was an annexation (I don’t think it was).
I think we should add to the “Transjordan announcement” section that numerous scholars describe this as an annexation. I don’t think it is universally considered an annexation though, as the British claimed that it was always included. If you look at the wording of the actual announcement (or at least the English translation we have here) it looks like it was purposefully worded ambiguously so that it didn’t imply judgement on prior ownership. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan's annexation of the West Bank (also de facto and not de jure) was hardly recognized by any country, yet the consensus on Wikipedia was to chose to use the term "annexation". Keeping occupation implies the inhabitants of the territory controlled not enjoying civil rights like the rest of the population, and that the territory is treated differently. Neither was the case. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is the way I think about it:
  • This article is about the occupation during the period 1918-25, where it had a status similar to OETA (occupied by definition)
Correct. By who? Hussein/Hijaz, who was an "ally" with recognized belligerent status. The problems began when this status was not properly recognized at Versailles (in fact the French tried to deny Faisal even a place at the table).Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1923 the mandate officially began. This created two states, Palestine and Transjordan. Neither were “annexed” to another state, they were created to stand alone.
  • In 1925 (the final moment in the scope of this article), Ma’an-Aqaba was confirmed as part of Transjordan. For those who consider it wasn’t in there before, it was annexed in 1925. For those who consider it was in there before, then nothing changed in 1925. So 1925 was never an “occupation”; it was either an annexation or simply a confirmation of what was always included in the 1923 mandate. Important here to note that the 1922 Transjordan memorandum (effective 1923 with the mandate) defined itself to cover “all territory lying to the east of a line drawn from a point two miles west of the town of Akaba”, so it included the Ma’an region.
I would say that it purported to include the Ma'an region. It's clear from the sources that the British didn't think their claim legally watertight whatever they may have said in public. That's why the claim remained under discussion with Ibn Saud. You could call it disputed territory if you prefer.Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1948 was a classic annexation – addition of new territory to a pre-existing territory, legalized by a plebiscite and recognition.
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly happened in 1925? It was the same thing; Transjordan was a state, albeit not exactly defined. If we consider that Transjordan was compromised of the Hauran Sanjak alone, then this is just identical to 1948: the addition of a new territory to a pre-existing territory, legalized by Ali's ceding of the territory (disputed, I know) and recognition through the nationality law and the organic law. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was (treated as) a Mandate for a start, so that's one difference (recall that the borders were to be set by the Allied Powers at least in part because they were not precisely sure of the situation in the Ottoman South). In 1948, the Mandate had terminated with the UN having become involved prior. Anyway in 1925, the British finally staked a (dubious) claim (on TJ's behalf), said, you take (annex) it and we will deal with Ibn Saud and to keep matters all nicely tied up, thank Ali for giving it (back) to you (which Hussein in exile objected to by letter to the Times). Strictly speaking, I would say that the situation had not been resolved (de facto but not de jure) in 1925, the Permanent Mandates Commission were still interested (with good reason) as was Ibn Saud (with equally good reason) and so was Hussein (with good reason but not in a position to do anything about it).Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we are just going into too much details. I honestly haven't read the article as a whole and I find many parts really confusing and full of new information. Therefore I am still inclined to 'annexation' not only because of the argument I put forth but also because it is supported by a number of sources, including the highly-esteemed Massad. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this article is not about 1925, it is about the period before 1925. So the title of the article should reflect the status during that period, not the action which took place in 1925. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The article is about Jordan's claims to the Ma'an Sanjak and not just to pre-1925. For example, the article goes on stating the official British position in the 1940s, and the later agreement with Saudi Arabia. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the article is about all claims (not just Jordanian) to the area over a period starting around 1917 and ending in 1965. That's a bit of a mouthful for a title and given that the whole mess begins with an occupation, I think the title is not that bad.Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1925 bit is paras 13 and 14 on page 3 of the 1940 memorandum, although I am not sure that will resolve your doubt, tbh. At one point the British referred to it as "retrocession" which is not a word you hear every day. There is after all, a reason why Shwadran called it "one of the most confused chapters in that country's history". I think that if it had been clear cut, then it would not have dragged on and on like it did. Massad says it (the "annexed" part) was "part of Hijaz" and that is what the whole argument is about, really. It seems clear that Hussein occupied and then administered the area (giving him a potential claim). Alternatively, you could take the position that the territory was still Ottoman pending disposition but if that was the position then the British should have made that case much earlier on and not waited until 1925 to sort it out "a la imperial".Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how this sort of thing can just go on and on. Saudi finally got Tiran and Sanafir from Egypt which is also a claim based on Hijaz successor status. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_Ma%27an&oldid=1200155004"